Will Democrats stall war against terror? Consequences?

N. Korea sells technology and atomic bombs to Iran, which forwards them to their terrorists militias. We will then have nuclear terrorists on
European or U.S. soil before or during the next president's term! Perhaps even an explosion which no one will be able to trace ... what are the
odds?

I see it both as a European problem and American. That's why we now have NATO and not just the U.S. alliance in Afghanistan. But NATO cannot act,
against Iran for example, if there is no political will in the U.S., even if it is the wisest thing to do.

Iran - U.S and E.U. HAVE to work together along with Russia and China and other wealthy nations to prevent them from developing nukes (or buying them
from North Korea). Democrats need to push hard for more diplomacy on the part of the U.S AND other world leaders to come to a solution with the
nuclear issue. SAME AS NORTH KOREA (below).

Iraq - The damage is already done as the U.S. led invasion 'undid' Saddam's rule which was largely Bush's (The Father) answer to Iranian Shiite
Fundamentalism in the 1970's (in other words, Saddam's Iraq was a 'Buffer' against Shiite fundamentalism in Iran). The Shiite majority has now
been unleashed and the international community has got to get involved to help bring civility and unity to Iraq. No military can stop the
Sunni-Shiite religious war BUT the military CAN seal off Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran to prevent foreign fighters/terrorists/weapons from
flooding in as they have been and fueling the bloodshed and killing U.S./coalition soldiers (recently retired generals have been stating that for a
while). Democrats need to help get the international community involved.

Afganistan - Democrats need to INSIST that the Generals run this WAR instead of beaurocratic politicians. Eliminate Al Qaida once and for all and get
Bin Laden dead or alive. Give the military what they need and get some financial accountability in the Pentagon.

North Korea - international community has to prevent N. Korea from selling nukes. SAME AS IRAN (above).

Well Prokurator I didn’t see much in your post about why you think the democrats will hurt the war on terror. Aimlessly said more
through…

Firstly: I think the U.S military has all the money it needs. Rumsfeld had been tight on troop commitments, but I think this was because he figured
more troops equals a higher rate of politically troublesome troop deaths. This has clearly backfired more than most people expected with us loosing
control of much of the Iraq and Afghanistan situation. However I find it hard to understand exactly why it has anything to do with a shortage of
money, rather only a shortage of political will to accept bad news for the longer term. Since 9/11 U.S military spending has risen by about 200
billion. I think Rumsfeld simply took a risk; and the has price failed it.

Secondly: I do not understand why there will be no war on terror with the democrats in power. It’s absurd. Do you mean they’re just going to let
terrorist come in and blow up our buildings? And then expect to get re-elected? How many democrats aren’t career politicians? Or are they all
ideological men who believe in doing the right thing? (the type I would say western countries need). (Make up your mind because both is a
contradiction).

Reality is that the Democrats and the Republicans are so equally baffled by the war on terror that they are talking of working together. This is a
no-brainer for the Republicans as it will deny the Democrats less opportunity when things go wrong because the Republicans can say “the Democrats
would have done the same” both parties should say “your choice has been successfully limited by our new found relationship”.
People are angry with the Republicans because of their corruption; and because of their lying (particularly over Iraq). Hence its Iraq and not
Afghanistan that’s the big issue (even though Afghanistan seems to have turned into a bit of disaster too). Soldier’s deaths aside one way to
measure the Taliban’s success is the countries ever bigger annual opium crop.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.